I Pay More State IncomeTaxes than Rockwell Automation

And you probably do, too.  Details from the Institute for Wisconsin's Future.

More on Senator Johnson and Regulations

I blogged recently about Senator Johnson's obession with the mythical regulation problem and how misguided his actions are. 

Two more articles on this from Kevin Drum and Tanya Somander which add to a series of posts and articles around the web on the convenient timing of the Republican war on regulations (in that they only seem to worry about it when the President is a "D").



....And how could I forget the definitive smack-down on this?  Somehow, I doubt this and other documentation will persuade the good Senator from Wisconsin.

Senator Johnson's Misguided War on Regulations

Week after week, Senator Johnson in his newsletters lambastes the supposed effect of regulations on jobs.  He has even introduced a bill, S1438, Regulation Moratorium and Jobs Preservation Act of 2011, which would "Prohibits any federal agency from taking any significant regulatory action until the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports a monthly unemployment rate equal to or less than 7.7%. "

Senator Johnson apparently is firm in his belief that regulations are, to use a favorite Republican phrase, "job-killing."  The truth?  Not so much.

First up, the Washington Post fact-checked a recent Republican presidential debate in which this issue was brought up.  Their conclusion?

THE FACTS: Labor Department data show that only a tiny percentage of companies that experience large layoffs cite government regulation as the reason. Since Barack Obama took office, just two-tenths of 1 percent of layoffs have been due to government regulation, the data show.

Businesses frequently complain about regulation, but there is little evidence that it is any worse now than in the past or that it is costing significant numbers of jobs. Most economists believe there is a simpler explanation: Companies aren’t hiring because there isn’t enough consumer demand.

Mother Jones did a similar investigation into this, finding that the effects of regulation on jobs are likely not great, and ended with:

"The issue in regulation always should be whether it delivers benefits that justify the cost," said Noll. "The effect of regulation on jobs has nothing to do with the mess we're in. The current rhetoric about regulation killing jobs is nothing more than not letting a good crisis go to waste."

Senator Johnson, in discussing his bill, stated:

Under the Obama administration, each year the government implements an average of 84 "economically-significant" new regulations, ones that each cost the economy $100 million or more annually.

There are more than 4,000 new regulations now being written, including hundreds of economically-significant ones, but any one of them is significant if it's the one that overturns your business model. If you were a worried entrepreneur, would you be eager to hire amid such uncertainty?

But what he leaves unsaid is that President Bush had a higher pace of economically significant regulatory activities. 

Let's see:  President Obama isn't doing as many regulations as his predecessor did, and regulations rarely are "job-killing" in the first place.  Plus they often deliver public benefits!  That isn't to say that there aren't regulations that are outdated or ill-thought, something the Obama administration is already tackling. 

Update:  An inappropriate remark was removed.

Just Think

Less money on housing and transportation = more money on useless junk that fuels the economy!  Plus charity to support all those sick people that Republicans are saying should depend on charity not taxpayers.

Highway Priorities

According to this study, via Ezra Klein's Wonkblog, 43% of the average state transportation budget went to repairing 98.7% of roads, meaning that 57%  of the budget went toward highway expansion and new construction for just 1.3% of the roads.  The study, Repair Priorities, from Smart Growth America and Taxpayers for Common Sense, analyzed that Wisconsin spent $429 million annually in road repair and preservation between 2004-2008, but that $685 million annually was needed. 

Using highway data, it estimates that 51% of Wisconsin's roads were rated as being in good condition.  While 51% isn't that great, it's better than the national average of 47%.  That "the nation as a whole earned a D- for road conditions on the 2009 American Society of Civil Engineers report card" is not a good sign.

As the Wonkblog's Brad Plumer noted, there was another paper with a more detailed case for "Fix It First" by Matthew Kahn( UCLA) and David Levinson (University of Minnesota).  Titled Fix It First, Expand It Second, Reward it Third, the paper outlines a new strategy for the nation's highways.  What's interesting is that it discusses how roads tend to stay in good quality for a long time, then its quality drops suddenly as it starts to fall apart.  If enough funding is provided to maintain roads, that period of good quality can last longer.  Replacing a road costs substantially more than the cost of repairing it.

As Governor Walker is so fond of saying, Wisconsin is broke.  So shouldn't we prioritize our highway funding to get more bang for the buck? 

Another aspect is that new highway construction and expansion adds more sprawl, more inefficient land use.

Imagine This in Milwaukee

Can you imagine something like this happening in the Milwaukee metro area?  Even though we've seen some major highway work, there's still plenty of work that could be done, particularly with bridges, dams, and tracks.  Not to mention the fact that Atlanta area is spending so much money, 52% of $6.14 billion (yes, "b") on mass transit.

Shut Out, Priced Out & Segregated

The Metro Fair Housing Services in Georgia published a report, Shut Out, Priced Out, and Segregated: The Need for Fair Housing for People With Disabilities.  It looks at housing issues that people with disabilities face-accessibility, affordability, and integration.

It, in particular, does a thorough job of documenting the need for Visitability, which is no surprise as Atlanta is home to the "Mother of Visitability", Eleanor Smith and the organization she founded, Concrete Change.

Check it out.

Vouchers in Wisconsin-Responses

A while ago I blogged about some data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).  To summarize, CBPP published data on Housing Choice Vouchers ("Section 8 Vouchers") that Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) have, showing that many vouchers are being unused.  While some PHAs were using all, or nearly all, of their vouchers, others had relatively low voucher usages.

This provoked a response from two housing authority directors (not of the PHAs that CBPP listed as among the lowest voucher usage), who correctly pointed out that just because a PHA had the authority to issue X number of vouchers doesn't mean they have funding for those vouchers.  They point out that a few years ago, HUD changed their policies so that instead of authorizing a PHA to issue X number of vouchers, HUD now says "here's a pot of money that 'should' give you X number of vouchers."  The problem is, that pot of money is an estimate, and when you have rising rents (higher rents) and families needing even more housing assistance (lower income = more voucher needed to cover the rent), that pot of money may not be enough.

I asked Barbara Sard, Vice President for Housing Policy, to comment on those responses.  Below is her response:

Your blog using our data is excellent.  It’s great to see the data used so effectively, and obviously you got some PHAs to take notice.  We’re going to post a background piece that will help provide context for the data.  But the short answer to your question is that it is correct that some PHAs do not receive enough funding to use all their authorized vouchers.  At the same time, many agencies do receive sufficient funding, or have sufficient funding in reserves, to assist more families.  That’s the point of the third bullet at the top of the state fact sheet, which says that Wisconsin agencies had sufficient funds available in 2010 to use 1,276 of the approximately 2,800 total vouchers that were unused.  This estimate is based on a calculation that Wisconsin agencies had unspent funding reserves of close to $10 million at the end of 2010.  While we agree (as noted on the sheet) that it is prudent for agencies to hold modest funds in reserve to meet unanticipated costs, it is also the case that a significant portion of these funds could be used to assist additional families.  Let me know if you have additional questions.

I don't see the background piece she mentions on the CBPP site, but I will post it when I see it.